Xenoblade Chronicles 3 Proves One Final Fantasy 16 Criticism is a Double Standard
Xenoblade Chronicles 3 Proves One Final Fantasy 16 Criticism is a Double Standard
by WorldlyDear
23 Comments
jc726
Two paragraphs in and this article already lost me.
FF13 through 16 had radically different combat systems that changed drastically in each game and eventually ended on a heavily action-oriented style that barely resembles what the series was prior to FF13.
Xenoblade has made some tweaks with each installment but the bones of the combat system has been very similar in all four games.
There is no double standard because the franchises’ handling of their respective games’ combat systems over the last 15 years has been completely different. If FF16 hadn’t been a numbered mainline entry in a franchise that used to hold firm to “typical” JRPG gameplay, no one would have said anything – just like they didn’t about Stranger of Paradise, because that was obviously always meant to be its own thing.
I’m not saying FF16 has bad combat, or that they weren’t allowed to take the franchise in a different direction. I just can’t believe the author of this article really thought they had a compelling argument here.
WileyCyrus
I played the FF16 demo and based on that I see no similarities between the combat system
Strict_Donut6228
I read the article and regret it but it doesn’t really prove that the combat system is a double standard. Xenoblade 1 -3 all have the mmo style combat. It’s not a double standard since the Xenoblade series didn’t go from turn based to action. And people that are upset about the change are like long time fans. Would make more sense if Xenoblade started as a turn based game then got changed in its latest entry
I don’t know if I missed something but that read like a bad article.
Btw loving FFXVI
xvszero
I dunno.
One thing is, Xenoblade started this way, and Final Fantasy didn’t. Sure, franchises are allowed to change, but some fans will obviously not agree with certain changes. If Xenoblade just randomly turned into a turn-based game, even if it remained good, some people would take issue with that change. That’s ok. They’re allowed to.
Another thing is, the Final Fantasy XVI battle system feels pretty inferior to me. I’d have to get deeper into it to say for sure but Xenoblade’s feels more complex. And that’s coming from someone who thinks Xenoblade’s could use a lot of work too.
RicebinBernacky
Whenever I see gamerant.com, I know I’m about to read something very stupid.
DadooDragoon
All this proves is journalism is dead
RyuTheDepressedFox
Gamerant peak jornalism /s
Echo1138
Yeah, I’m pretty sure XC3’s combat system isn’t “universally appreciated”.
apocalypserisin
Man what a shitass article. Some people don’t like ff16 not because of the non turn based combat, but it is literally not an rpg anymore. God of war is more of an rpg than 16.
CorbinTheTitan
Xenoblade combat has always been this way
Newolf16
There’s been a lot of disingenuous arguments in defense of FFXVI, and this is a prime example.
First, I have not seen a large group of FF gamers calling for XVI to return to traditional turn-based combat, I’ve only seen complaints about its direction being an action game with very light RPG mechanics, which says a lot considering modern FF is not deep on the RPG front as it is.
Second, all Xenoblade games follow the same basis for their combat system, if Xenoblade Chronicles 4 is a Musuo, and receives heaps of praise then we can revisit this conversation.
Third, why is it that Resident Evil fans got so much support in their criticisms of RE5 & 6’s genre swap, but criticism of FF doing similar is just written off as FF fans being stuck in the past?
madmofo145
Yeah, just a bad article. As others have pointed out the comparison to Xeno is just silly. It’s combat is often critiqued, and the series has always played with the MMO based combat. It’s also a very firmly routed “RPG”, with a lot of the critique I’m hearing being that XVI isn’t just too “actiony” but that it’s RPG systems are all very shallow. No one’s ever complained that the Tales series should be turnbased, and many would complain if that series suddenly took such a big turn.
Then there is the Octopath critique. That poor Octopath sales suggest turn based combat is dead, not that people found the overall game to be a bit long and shallow, with too many damage sponge bosses, etc. The idea that someone who wanted a turn based FF XVI is going to buy the much lower budget pixel art based Octopath instead is nonsense. Also, it’s factually wrong!
> “Unfortunately, the truth is that these titles can’t begin to compare with Xenoblade Chronicles and Final Fantasy in terms of sales, indicating that most players seem to prefer combat systems that evolve beyond the turn-based model.”
Umm… Octopath 1 has sold at least 3 million copies, Xenoblade 1 sold just over that across 3 different iterations, and 3 is sitting notably below. Octopath shows the exact opposite of what the author says, that even a pixel art based game critiqued for having a lackluster story can sell mostly on it’s turn based roota, easily matching and exceeding the sales of Xenoblade with it’s “evolved” combat system.
Heck, we can even throw in a counter point to all this. Despite being controversial in it’s own right, Yakuza Like a Dragon is apparently the best selling game of the series internationally, and that may in fact be because people like me bought it, wanting a big fun modern turn based game.
Just really odd how poor the arguments are, and how they’re willing to assert things like bad Octopath sales vs Xenoblade without doing any research.
PositivityPending
1. “Not a real Final Fantasy” …I feel like I’m experiencing a CIA psyop right now. I’ve not seen a single post decrying 16 as not a real FF game. The only things I’ve seen on the subject are copium posts like this article. Embarrassing bro
2. I sure _wish_ “millions” of fans were sinking hours into XC3.
3. And Octopath is sitting at 3 mil, which is absolutely nothing to scoff at for any game. 3 million is a lot.
Aiddon
While I agree the complaints against FFXVI’s combat smack of double standards and hypocrisy, Xenoblade isn’t the best comparison as it hasn’t been around as long as FF has (though it’s funny considering series’ creator Takahashi got his start at Squaresoft, even working on the FF series) plus Xenoblade isn’t really an action RPG despite it being a real-time system.
If I were really going to get into it, I would say FF hasn’t been strictly, consistently turn-based since FFIII so saying it’s been traditionally turn-based is a flat out lie. They’ve used the ATB since FFIV and the last turn-based one was FFX, which was an odd man out so to speak. And a lot of just goes back to FF always experimenting, trying new things in terms of gameplay and story as an evolutionary divergence to series like Dragon Quest. And quite frankly considering how many entries in the series have waffled on turn-based or action-based combat, FFXVI putting its foot down and saying “We’re action-based” is rather refreshing. Some people will complain, but we all know XVI is going to be fine in the long run
IrishSpectreN7
I love action games. I love action-RPGs.
To me, FFXVI manages to be both a mediocre action game *and* RPG because it doesn’t have a good balance. It has action gameplay more basic than something you’d find in Bayonetta and DMC, but it also has barebones RPG elements that feel completely tacked on and inconsequential.
Xenoblade might also be an action game, but it has all those RPG mechanics that FFXVI is sorely lacking.
ShiftyShaymin
Awful article. FF16 has great scores, it’s just the changes have different opinions depending on the player.
Second, Final Fantasy imo is always changing. One of the charms I have with the series is even if I dislike one, I can always look forward to the next because nothing is guaranteed to stick around. Just looking at FF 9-12, we see four wildly different games.
Lastly, there is not much to compare with FF16 and XB3. They compared because it’s two RPGs from Japan. If Bethesda and BioWare released two games a year apart, we wouldn’t be seeing comparisons like this. They did it because they’re shoehorning JRPGs as one lump, and cannot fathom them diversifying.
NachoDildo
Dumb article is dumb.
Xenoblade has always had more action driven combat with MMO like flavors. Final Fantasy was turn based most of its existence, and the issue isn’t necessarily that it’s not turn based but that the combat itself is really shallow. It’s good, but lacks depth. FF7R had more depth.
TheToadKing
I personally haven’t played FFXVI but based on all the footage I’ve seen of it the combat between it and Xenoblade are vastly different. Xenoblade is waaaaaaay closer to RPG’s turn-based roots than XVI is.
SwashNBuckle
FFXVI aside (still need to try it, waiting for PC version), I’m tired of people acting like turn based gameplay is now somehow bad and needs to go away. It reminds me a lot of when people used to say that boss fights were out dated and needed to go away.
It’s okay if someone doesn’t like turn based gameplay. They don’t need to yuck someone else’s yum to justify it.
JdPhoenix
This is dumb for many reasons, but high on the list is the fact that the combat in Xenoblade has always been the worst aspect of the series…
gitg0od
xc3 has party management, synergy between characters, deep combat system, huge and rewarding exploration, it’s not linear at all, it’s epic, it’s light years better than this shitty ff 16 game.
Answerofduty
I kind of skimmed, but is this article *for real* trying to say that other JRPGs succeeding critically with action combat means you can’t argue Final Fantasy should be turn-based?
What a 78 IQ assertion, why would you even consider writing an article with such a juvenile premise? Xenoblade has nothing to do with FF, it didn’t start as a classic turn-based game and eventually end up Devil May Cry. Neither did Tales, or any of the other popular action-JRPGs. Nobody is saying *all* JRPGs should only be turn-based, they just liked FF when it was.
Now, I’m not one of the people upset about FF16’s gameplay style — I haven’t been much into mainline Final Fantasy besides 14 since the GBA and DS re-releases, and have historically enjoyed some spinoffs more than the main games. I liked ATB, but FF clearly hasn’t been that in a *long* time, and hasn’t even had much of a gameplay identity since then. I’m loving 16. But this article is making a stupid, low-resolution argument that doesn’t even make much sense.
JdPhoenix
If I could get an RPG with Xenoblade’s storytelling and Octopath’s combat, it would be fantastic.
23 Comments
Two paragraphs in and this article already lost me.
FF13 through 16 had radically different combat systems that changed drastically in each game and eventually ended on a heavily action-oriented style that barely resembles what the series was prior to FF13.
Xenoblade has made some tweaks with each installment but the bones of the combat system has been very similar in all four games.
There is no double standard because the franchises’ handling of their respective games’ combat systems over the last 15 years has been completely different. If FF16 hadn’t been a numbered mainline entry in a franchise that used to hold firm to “typical” JRPG gameplay, no one would have said anything – just like they didn’t about Stranger of Paradise, because that was obviously always meant to be its own thing.
I’m not saying FF16 has bad combat, or that they weren’t allowed to take the franchise in a different direction. I just can’t believe the author of this article really thought they had a compelling argument here.
I played the FF16 demo and based on that I see no similarities between the combat system
I read the article and regret it but it doesn’t really prove that the combat system is a double standard. Xenoblade 1 -3 all have the mmo style combat. It’s not a double standard since the Xenoblade series didn’t go from turn based to action. And people that are upset about the change are like long time fans. Would make more sense if Xenoblade started as a turn based game then got changed in its latest entry
I don’t know if I missed something but that read like a bad article.
Btw loving FFXVI
I dunno.
One thing is, Xenoblade started this way, and Final Fantasy didn’t. Sure, franchises are allowed to change, but some fans will obviously not agree with certain changes. If Xenoblade just randomly turned into a turn-based game, even if it remained good, some people would take issue with that change. That’s ok. They’re allowed to.
Another thing is, the Final Fantasy XVI battle system feels pretty inferior to me. I’d have to get deeper into it to say for sure but Xenoblade’s feels more complex. And that’s coming from someone who thinks Xenoblade’s could use a lot of work too.
Whenever I see gamerant.com, I know I’m about to read something very stupid.
All this proves is journalism is dead
Gamerant peak jornalism /s
Yeah, I’m pretty sure XC3’s combat system isn’t “universally appreciated”.
Man what a shitass article. Some people don’t like ff16 not because of the non turn based combat, but it is literally not an rpg anymore. God of war is more of an rpg than 16.
Xenoblade combat has always been this way
There’s been a lot of disingenuous arguments in defense of FFXVI, and this is a prime example.
First, I have not seen a large group of FF gamers calling for XVI to return to traditional turn-based combat, I’ve only seen complaints about its direction being an action game with very light RPG mechanics, which says a lot considering modern FF is not deep on the RPG front as it is.
Second, all Xenoblade games follow the same basis for their combat system, if Xenoblade Chronicles 4 is a Musuo, and receives heaps of praise then we can revisit this conversation.
Third, why is it that Resident Evil fans got so much support in their criticisms of RE5 & 6’s genre swap, but criticism of FF doing similar is just written off as FF fans being stuck in the past?
Yeah, just a bad article. As others have pointed out the comparison to Xeno is just silly. It’s combat is often critiqued, and the series has always played with the MMO based combat. It’s also a very firmly routed “RPG”, with a lot of the critique I’m hearing being that XVI isn’t just too “actiony” but that it’s RPG systems are all very shallow. No one’s ever complained that the Tales series should be turnbased, and many would complain if that series suddenly took such a big turn.
Then there is the Octopath critique. That poor Octopath sales suggest turn based combat is dead, not that people found the overall game to be a bit long and shallow, with too many damage sponge bosses, etc. The idea that someone who wanted a turn based FF XVI is going to buy the much lower budget pixel art based Octopath instead is nonsense. Also, it’s factually wrong!
> “Unfortunately, the truth is that these titles can’t begin to compare with Xenoblade Chronicles and Final Fantasy in terms of sales, indicating that most players seem to prefer combat systems that evolve beyond the turn-based model.”
Umm… Octopath 1 has sold at least 3 million copies, Xenoblade 1 sold just over that across 3 different iterations, and 3 is sitting notably below. Octopath shows the exact opposite of what the author says, that even a pixel art based game critiqued for having a lackluster story can sell mostly on it’s turn based roota, easily matching and exceeding the sales of Xenoblade with it’s “evolved” combat system.
Heck, we can even throw in a counter point to all this. Despite being controversial in it’s own right, Yakuza Like a Dragon is apparently the best selling game of the series internationally, and that may in fact be because people like me bought it, wanting a big fun modern turn based game.
Just really odd how poor the arguments are, and how they’re willing to assert things like bad Octopath sales vs Xenoblade without doing any research.
1. “Not a real Final Fantasy” …I feel like I’m experiencing a CIA psyop right now. I’ve not seen a single post decrying 16 as not a real FF game. The only things I’ve seen on the subject are copium posts like this article. Embarrassing bro
2. I sure _wish_ “millions” of fans were sinking hours into XC3.
3. And Octopath is sitting at 3 mil, which is absolutely nothing to scoff at for any game. 3 million is a lot.
While I agree the complaints against FFXVI’s combat smack of double standards and hypocrisy, Xenoblade isn’t the best comparison as it hasn’t been around as long as FF has (though it’s funny considering series’ creator Takahashi got his start at Squaresoft, even working on the FF series) plus Xenoblade isn’t really an action RPG despite it being a real-time system.
If I were really going to get into it, I would say FF hasn’t been strictly, consistently turn-based since FFIII so saying it’s been traditionally turn-based is a flat out lie. They’ve used the ATB since FFIV and the last turn-based one was FFX, which was an odd man out so to speak. And a lot of just goes back to FF always experimenting, trying new things in terms of gameplay and story as an evolutionary divergence to series like Dragon Quest. And quite frankly considering how many entries in the series have waffled on turn-based or action-based combat, FFXVI putting its foot down and saying “We’re action-based” is rather refreshing. Some people will complain, but we all know XVI is going to be fine in the long run
I love action games. I love action-RPGs.
To me, FFXVI manages to be both a mediocre action game *and* RPG because it doesn’t have a good balance. It has action gameplay more basic than something you’d find in Bayonetta and DMC, but it also has barebones RPG elements that feel completely tacked on and inconsequential.
Xenoblade might also be an action game, but it has all those RPG mechanics that FFXVI is sorely lacking.
Awful article. FF16 has great scores, it’s just the changes have different opinions depending on the player.
Second, Final Fantasy imo is always changing. One of the charms I have with the series is even if I dislike one, I can always look forward to the next because nothing is guaranteed to stick around. Just looking at FF 9-12, we see four wildly different games.
Lastly, there is not much to compare with FF16 and XB3. They compared because it’s two RPGs from Japan. If Bethesda and BioWare released two games a year apart, we wouldn’t be seeing comparisons like this. They did it because they’re shoehorning JRPGs as one lump, and cannot fathom them diversifying.
Dumb article is dumb.
Xenoblade has always had more action driven combat with MMO like flavors. Final Fantasy was turn based most of its existence, and the issue isn’t necessarily that it’s not turn based but that the combat itself is really shallow. It’s good, but lacks depth. FF7R had more depth.
I personally haven’t played FFXVI but based on all the footage I’ve seen of it the combat between it and Xenoblade are vastly different. Xenoblade is waaaaaaay closer to RPG’s turn-based roots than XVI is.
FFXVI aside (still need to try it, waiting for PC version), I’m tired of people acting like turn based gameplay is now somehow bad and needs to go away. It reminds me a lot of when people used to say that boss fights were out dated and needed to go away.
It’s okay if someone doesn’t like turn based gameplay. They don’t need to yuck someone else’s yum to justify it.
This is dumb for many reasons, but high on the list is the fact that the combat in Xenoblade has always been the worst aspect of the series…
xc3 has party management, synergy between characters, deep combat system, huge and rewarding exploration, it’s not linear at all, it’s epic, it’s light years better than this shitty ff 16 game.
I kind of skimmed, but is this article *for real* trying to say that other JRPGs succeeding critically with action combat means you can’t argue Final Fantasy should be turn-based?
What a 78 IQ assertion, why would you even consider writing an article with such a juvenile premise? Xenoblade has nothing to do with FF, it didn’t start as a classic turn-based game and eventually end up Devil May Cry. Neither did Tales, or any of the other popular action-JRPGs. Nobody is saying *all* JRPGs should only be turn-based, they just liked FF when it was.
Now, I’m not one of the people upset about FF16’s gameplay style — I haven’t been much into mainline Final Fantasy besides 14 since the GBA and DS re-releases, and have historically enjoyed some spinoffs more than the main games. I liked ATB, but FF clearly hasn’t been that in a *long* time, and hasn’t even had much of a gameplay identity since then. I’m loving 16. But this article is making a stupid, low-resolution argument that doesn’t even make much sense.
If I could get an RPG with Xenoblade’s storytelling and Octopath’s combat, it would be fantastic.